User talk:Udairatna

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. R. Ambedkar page

Hello, I am sorry that nobody had given you welcome message yet. I just did. Please go through it and study the links that explain the basic Wikipedia policies. You must edit Wikipedia according to its policies and standards, not your own likes/dislikes.

Regarding your argumentation at the Talk:B. R. Ambedkar page, I assure you that the article has been written as per Wikipedia policies. I think you would do best to quit this argumentation and edit other pages. Once you get enough experience with how Wikipedia works, you can come back to it later. At the moment, your arguments are invalid and they will not be accepted. If you persist with them, you are liable to be sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont need your welcome.I need truth in that page.
Please don't teach me rules of wikipedia,i may not be familiar with wikipedia rules but i am familiar with Dr. Ambedkar quotes and books.You are a Brahmin i guess who is appropriating Dr. Ambedkar thoughts. Please do not make it personal.I asked you to quote Dr. Ambedkar book,but you never quoted him.So it shows your vulnerability.If you are following wikipedia policy then quote Dr. Ambedkar,do not quote other authors who cant understand him. Udairatna (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA saanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is this Arbitration committee which can impose sanctions on topic of India,pakistan and Afghanistan is involved in Dr. Ambedkar Page?Ohh you are threatening me i guess..hahaha..great job mr.kautilya3.You have no arguments against my statements then accept that you are appropriating Dr. Ambedkar's thoughts.Udairatna (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Udairatna, I saw your ping and comments on the talk page of B. R. Ambedkar. "Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia which aims to create a breadth of high-quality, neutral, verifiable articles and to become a serious, respected reference work. (...) Wikipedia operates through collaboration between editors to achieve the encyclopedia's goals. Differences of opinion about neutrality, reliability, notability, and other issues are properly resolved through civil discussion aimed at facilitating a consensus. (...) Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect "true" information, but aims to synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge. Our responsibility is not just to verify material, but to contextualize and weight it appropriately." (quoted from WP:ADVOCACY) Please see WP:Talk, WP:BURDEN, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT for more information. If you need help, please consider to ask a question at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, a friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JimRenge:plz go through Talk page of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and tell me how am i eligible for sanctions?.I asked creator of page to quote directly from Ambedkar's books, which make it primary source but kautilya3 is relying more on Arvind Sharma appropriation than original works of Dr. Ambedkar.I quoted directly from his book.How am i wrong?

Udairatna (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 went out of his way to inform you about Wikipedias policies and guidelines. The info about discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India (this includes BR Ambedkar and the corresponding talk page) is no threat.

"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." (quoted from WP:RS) JimRenge (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JimRenge Plz have a look on the talk page regarding last line of Aryan invasion theory .I think you can understand it. plz have a look on the talk page of Dr. Ambedkar and tell me if i quoted Dr. Ambedkar,does it make me wrong?.And plz tell me in short if Primary sources(Dr.Ambedkar books) are more reliable than secondary source(Arvind sharma)?
Udairatna (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles have to comply with our policy on WP:NPOV neutral point of view. To chieve a neutral point of view, editors are required to summarize what reliable, independent (!), secondary sources write about the topic. The wikipedia article about a person can not be based on this persons publications or speeches. If you want to argue that the analysis of a secondary source (here Sharma) is wrong, you have to present the evidence (alternative reliable, independent, secondary sources; full citation with page no).

If you need help, please consider to ask a question at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. JimRenge (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:JimRenge,thanx for ur kind help.So if i quoted with full citation with page no. its accepted?.Then good i will do that.By the way i did that in italics and quoted half para not full page.But I am prepare to go that extra mile and check creator Kautilya3 reaction.Thanx.
Udairatna (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that BR Ambedkar´s book is neither an independent nor a secondary source. JimRenge (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JimRenge: Plz explain how its not independent? I agree that its not secondary source but in my opinion its primary source of what are his views on Aryan invasion.And if you quote directly a person from his books,then this is more authentic right?.And btw i read that NPOV(neutral point of view) policy of wikipedia.They clearly said that NPOV which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.And i am ready to write what Govt. Of India published.Govt of India released Dr. Ambedkar writings and speeches in 1990's and they are available on internet in the form of pdf.
And one more eye opener is that i am strictly adhering to rules of wikipedia,their 3 core content principles:
1)NPOV
2) Verifiability
3)No Original research
So i think i need to quote Full citations with page no. Udairatna (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An independent or third-party source is not closely affiliated with the subject. JimRenge (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JimRenge: I think you were wrong before right ? when you said B R Ambedkars book is not independent source,right? or you wrote that by mistake?
How come a book written by that same person is not independent when the wiki article is about that person only.How come secondaryy source become more reliable? when its the other way round in wikipedia rules which i quoted above.Rules favour me.Thats what i asked.Anyways thanx for teahouse thing.
Udairatna (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Why this restriction on Dr.B.R Ambedkar? why cant we present the facts about life of Dr.BR Ambedkar?I have given so many reasons and examples on Talk page and asked question to Kautilya3,but he never responded to them.So whoo isat fault?Isthis Wikipedia thing run by upper castes Brahmins?Tell me your real name and which country do you live NielN ?Udairatna (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning - stop this caste nonsense or you'll be blocked. And don't ask editors to reveal personal info - see WP:HARASS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]